2009 SAT scores: good news for Asians

2009 SAT score results are in.

Good news for Asians, their scores are higher than last year, up 8 points on math and 3 points on the Critical Reading section. Asians now outperform whites on the Writing section. (Kate’s complaint in the previous post that Asian men lack verbal skills has no basis in fact.)

Bad news for everyone else, especially NAMs, “the score gap generally widened between lower-performing minority groups and white and Asian-American students.” Experts who deny HBD are stumped by the results.

* * *

Found the link to the official College Board report.

Comments

[How prejudice work]

"(Kate’s complaint in the previous post that Asian men lack verbal skills has no basis in fact.)"

Prejudice indeed.

Make a claim against some one without any base but only imagination.

[kurt9]

“the score gap generally widened between lower-performing minority groups and white and Asian-American students.”

Its a puzzlement, a quandary, a conundrum. After all, if the educators back by all of their lavish funding cannot figure out why this is, then no one can. We're just not meant to know these things.

[Anonymous]

I looked at the first ten or so comments and nobody brought up HBD. NYT readers bring it up, so why not Wall Street Journal? Then I went to register to leave my own comment, and found this

"The Journal Community encourages thoughtful dialogue and meaningful connections between real people. We require the use of your full name to authenticate your identity. The quality of conversations can deteriorate when real identities are not provided."

[HS: NYT comments are moderated. WSJ comments are unmoderated, but my real name shows up with anything I wrote.]

[Wade Nichols]

"Asians now outperform whites on the Writing section."

This sure blows a huge hole in the stupid argument that whiney black Marxists and their white liberal allies use when they claim that the SAT is "culturally biased" against blacks and hispanics.

The old argument was that the SAT used words such as "regatta" and "kayak", words that "oppressed" NAMs aren't familiar with, since NAMs don't belong to country clubs and go kayaking along the Hudson River every morning like most white kids do.

If the SAT was so blatantly "culturally biased" against NAMs, then why would "Whitey" construct a test in which Asians consistently outscore whites, on average?

[Eidolon]

Why is there a perception that Asians have generally weak verbal IQs again? I see this argument brought up a lot in discussions about why Asians lag in creative endeavors, but convincing data is rarely presented - the best people do is quote La Griffe du Lion, but he only demonstrated a gap of about 4-6 points in Northeast Asians - not enough to explain the disparity in creative endeavors. It also ignores Indian Americans, who have high verbal IQs, yet India hasn't exactly been the driver of human progress.

If there is a large gap, I would like to see it demonstrated beyond "yeah Asians I know aren't very good at English." If there is not, then other explanations must be presented.

[Anonymous]

"NYT comments are moderated. WSJ comments are unmoderated, "

It's not a censorship issue, just that a lot fewer people will put their real name to HBD beliefs.

[Lugo]

"Negroes still stupid, uneducable. Film at 11."

[Ok]

There's a difference between innate verbal skills and doing well on a specific test. Asians may put their nose to the grindstone and practice the test enough times to raise their scores up, but I'm skeptical they have higher verbal IQs. The Asians I've known, with the notable exception of Asian Indians, have never been particularly great verbalists. At the elite levels, you'll see relatively few Asians, though lots of Jewish people.

[miles]

"Experts who deny HBD are stumped by the results."

Anyone who denys HBD isn't an "expert" in my opinion, but a willingly intellectually dishonest time-server and establishement-boot-licker.

Japan is Japan for a reason, and Botswana is Botswana for a reason.

[miles]

Cut-and-pasted from Karen De Coster's blog:

National Average Percentile Scores
Subtest Homeschool Public School
Reading 89 50
Language 84 50
Math 84 50
Science 86 50
Social Studies 84 50
Corea 88 50
Compositeb 86 50

a. Core is a combination of Reading, Language, and Math.
b. Composite is a combination of all subtests that the student took on the test

If you want your kids to excell academically, and have better chances of getting into a good school (and thus have better life-chances), I think the decision to home-school them is a valiant one if you cannot afford a private school for them. In Germany, homeschooling is apparently illegal according a blog post I read at Randall Parker's.

[The Engineer]

So SAT scores peaked in 1963. It's been a long, slow decline since then. Can the decline be explained in its entirety be an expansion of the test taking population to lower IQ levels?

[mondo]

What good news for Asians (or for anyone who scores well)? News like this means the state will continue to misallocate resources towards the education of less-qualified students.

Back when I was a college student, who happened to be an extremely high achiever in the natural sciences, I couldn't find a research position because the undergraduate positions were primarily advertised for minorities and women. I eventually became apathetic about science as a result.

[M Stein]

The scores are consistent though with what's predicted by the 2003 New Immigrant Survey of the backward digit span subtest from the Wechsler IQ test. These are for the children of legal permanent resident immigrants:

White natives are at 100, with a standard deviation of 15.

European legal immigrants' kids: 99

India: 112

Northeast Asia: 106

Southeast Asia: 104

sub-Saharan Africa 89

Mexico 82

Central America/Caribbean 83

South America 86

[TangoMan]

(Kate’s complaint in the previous post that Asian men lack verbal skills has no basis in fact.)

If Kate is, say 28, and she is dating 17 year old Asian men who have just completed their SATs, then yes, you have a point. However, if Kate is dating in a same-age cohort then for your statement to be true you'd need to show us the Asian results of the SATs from 1999 or so.

[BR]

I have posted an HBD post on page 8.

'There is an amazing denial of reality here particularly in the 200th year of Darwin's birth! Groups separated for 50,000 years are unlikely to have developed a completely equal distribution of physical or mental traits:

1. Genes vary considerably in prevalence between ethnic groups (including those related to behavioural traits MAO-A, muscular force ACTN3, and cognitive function like rs2760118-C on SSADH, rs324650-T on CHRM2, and rs760761-C on DTNBP1). As WIlliam Saletan wrote:

"research is constantly finding new gene-trait correlations and group differences. If your faith in equality depends on an ethnically or racially even distribution of all ability-influencing genes, you're in trouble."

2. Evidence of considerable genetic changes over the past 10-15,000 years. . A fair fraction of the recent evolutionary change affected brain & axon growth. For example, you see new versions of SLC6A4, a serotonin transporter, in Europeans and Asians. There's a new version of a gene (DBA1) that shapes the development of the layers of the cerebral cortex in east Asia. 'The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution'(Perseus Books 2009) by Cochran & Harpending.

3. Transracial Adoption study results show that malnourished Asian adoptees perform above average even when raised in white households.

4. There is considerable psychometric evidence of group differences consistent with the recent neurological changes (Ashkenazi Jews consitently average 2/3 of a std deviation above Europeans. East Asians have a group average of about 103, Europeans 100) Rushton, J.P. and Jensen, A.R. (2005). Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2, 235-294. [easily located on the web]

5. There are physiological differences which show up from an early age. Rushton, J. P., & Ankney, C. D. (2009). Whole-brain size and general mental ability: A review. International Journal of Neuroscience, 119, 691-731.

[jef]

I guess that asian program of reading quadratic equations to children at bedtime is paying off.

[Aa]

Perhaps the common perception of poor (or relatively poorer) Asian verbal skills is a result of growing up in bilingual households?

[Eidolon]

"There's a difference between innate verbal skills and doing well on a specific test. Asians may put their nose to the grindstone and practice the test enough times to raise their scores up, but I'm skeptical they have higher verbal IQs. The Asians I've known, with the notable exception of Asian Indians, have never been particularly great verbalists. At the elite levels, you'll see relatively few Asians, though lots of Jewish people."

This is the sort of thing I was warning against. Anecdotal evidence. Establishing a theory requires solid data and control for confounding factors, neither of which are done here. Has it occurred to people that Asian Indians demonstrate great verbal skills in America because their *national language* is English and their *native language* is Indo-European? Of course they will have superior verbal skills compared to other Asians, whose native languages are as different from English and Indo-European languages in general as you can get, and whose countries most definitely do not use English as a national language.

And if verbal IQ is enough to explain creativity, why aren't high caste Asian Indians driving artistic and scientific progress? I'm not against the existence of HBD, in principle, but it would be nice if people held their ideas to a greater degree of scrutiny, instead of depending on the old "if you repeat something a thousand times, it becomes the truth" strategy.

[ant]

Spoken and written verbal skills are different, as are speech giving and interpersonal communication skills.

[Linda]

This data is meaningless because it mixes two completely different races: East Asians who are mongoloids & South Asians who are caucasoid and genetically akin to Arabs. It would be like releasing data on Africans and not bothering to differentiate between North Africans (Arabs, caucasoids) and Sub-Saharan Africans (Blacks, negroids).

[superdestroyer]

Miles,

I guess that to not teach statistics to homemschoolers. The only group that would have a fifty percentile for all groups would be the entire population.

If you really look up the statistics, home schoolers before at about the same level as all white students.

[Peter]

Are many colleges moving away from using the SAT in admissions? I've heard of some, perhaps the trend will accelerate.

[How prejudice work]

Actually, Asian family rarely read book to children during bedtime.

[sn]

OT

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/business/26lawyers.html

[OneSTDV]

I wrote about the SAT scores here:

http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2009/08/explanation-of-decline-in-sat-scores.html

[not too late]

Miles,

High homeschool scores reflect high ability students being removed from public school. Their parents can't afford private school because either they don't make enough or they have too many kids which would give a high total tuition bill for private school plus day care for little kids.

This is similar to why inner city schools do worse than suburban. The high ability kids leave and the average score falls.

[quasar]

jef: "I guess that asian program of reading quadratic equations to children at bedtime is paying off."

You seem pretty mad, jef. How mad are you? Scale of 1-10; 10?

[jj]

Since 1999, when Asians and whites were essentially identical on SAT scores, scores for all the racial groups have remained almost static. For Asians, scores have surged nearly 50 points. This indicates to me that something independent of IQ is allowing Asian kids to do well on the SAT. On the ACT, scores are also surging for Asians.

My guess would be that all these Asian test prep centers are proliferating and getting better at cracking the SAT and ACT. As the majority of Asians go to these centers, they can overperform relative to their IQ. Therefore, for Asians, the correlation between IQ and standardized test scores is much weaker than for other groups. As the test prep centers continue to better decipher the ACT and SAT, I predict Asian scores will continue to rise.

To the extent that genetics is helping Asian kids to do well in school, I'd credit 2 factors. One factor would be the high level of social conformity and group orientation in their community, which pushes pretty much almost every middle class AA kid into going to college and pursuing a lucrative field of study. THe other factor is their admirably resilient nose to the grindstone study habits, which are instrumental to good grades and high test scores.

My suggestion for any middle-class family interested in high SAT scores: send your kid to and Asian SAT prep/cram school.

As to the question of white IQ v.s. Asian IQ, large scale IQ data from the Coleman Report and Project Talent show that 2nd gen AA kids have an average IQ of 98.5. To the extent that they outperform whites, it's due to their far higher willingness to pursue higher education and stay out of trouble. This indicates to me that behavioral traits can play an important role on life outcome, independent of IQ.

[Sherson]

Kate's complaint wasn't necessarily baseless.

The verbal skills measured on the SAT (literacy, comprehension, vocabulary, argumentation) are quite different from improvisational/social verbal skills (oratory, small talk, storytelling, negotiation, poetry, etc.).

Black people tend to be better at the latter and poorer at the former, while I would guess the reverse is true of Asians.

[Alex]

"My guess would be that all these Asian test prep centers are proliferating and getting better at cracking the SAT and ACT. As the majority of Asians go to these centers, they can overperform relative to their IQ. Therefore, for Asians, the correlation between IQ and standardized test scores is much weaker than for other groups. As the test prep centers continue to better decipher the ACT and SAT, I predict Asian scores will continue to rise."

I'd want to see some evidence of some test prep center's utility before I accept than explanation. I suspect that Asian scores have either been rising because immigration is increasing from China and decreasing from the pacific islands, or because first generation Asian immigrants were below their population's mean and their children have regressed to their native country's mean.

I don't think that anyone has "cracked" the SAT or ACT, and if they did then wealthy parents hoping to send their kids to Ivy League schools would probably be the first to take advantage of the test prep centers. It is possible to get a better score by familiarizing oneself with the material, but any student who goes through a decent high school should know enough to get a decent score.

[Zeenon]

@jj The Coleman Report (1965) and Project Talent (1960) studies took place in the 60s. The Asians in those studies were mainly descended from farm laborers imported in the late 19th century, so it's not surprising that their mean IQ is slightly under 100. The Asians that earned the model minority stereotype are descended from immigrants who immigrated after the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was passed. Previous to that act, immigration from Asian countries was severely restricted. After the act was passed, immigration of highly skilled and educated Asians began. It is inappropriate to draw conclusions on the current Asian population based on data taken on a sub-group from fifty years ago.

Also it's important to keep in mind that the current SAT is scaled in some complicated manner that might allow for some of the discrepancies and surges. When I took the SAT, I got an 800 on the critical reading section with two wrong answers out of 65. Compare that to my math score where I only got a 740 with three wrong answers out of 54.

[lion]

Re: Asian verbal IQ, there is an immigrant effect. Once family income is > $70k, Asians score higher than whites of the same income (1995 SAT data). It's only immigrant (poor) Asians that score lower than whites.

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm#APPENDIX%20B

Note: the comment about English and Indo-European languages, etc. is aprobos here as well. Immigrants from India may speak English at home, but those from E. Asia would not.

Note, when Asians outscore whites you WN idiots think it's because they study harder, but then you turn around and ignore the fact that whites are also more studious than blacks. (Think Rushton r/k theory, blah blah.) Maybe whites have the same IQs as blacks but are just nerdier? (Whites are the nerdy betas and blacks are the alphas :-)

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"Since 1999, when Asians and whites were essentially identical on SAT scores, scores for all the racial groups have remained almost static. For Asians, scores have surged nearly 50 points."

Well, they've also lowered the standards since 1999 which may explain some of the increase.

[jj]

Cracking the SAT isn't enough to do well. One must pore over the material for a substanial period of time. Probably a few hours a day for a year. Who, other than Asians and Indians, is going to do that?

The Chinese that permanently settled in the U.S. in the late 1800s/early 1900s generally weren't farm laborers. Under U.S. immigration laws passed in the early 1900s, Chinese laborers were severely restricted from entering the country. Those laborers that arrived prior to the restrictions were prohibited from bringing in their families. Chinese-American communities for the most part turned into bachelor communities that stagnated or declined in population. Until 1965, most of the few Chinese immigrant families settled the U.S. under the merchant visa category or were "paper sons" that paid substanial money for forged documents.

The Japanese, as Thomas Sowell notes, pre-selected who could leave the country for foreign shores. Only young men of means and good character were allowed to live by their fellow villagers. Those that immigrated weren't from the gentry, but they weren't from the lower classes either. They were, in general, middle-class and ambitious agriculturalists.

Neither the Chinese nor the Japanese were from the bottom of the barrel and therefore there is no reason to think that either group were a below average reflection of their respective societies. Today's Asian immigrants, however, do tend to come from the more educated social classes and it's possible that they may be slightly higher than the white mean. Even that, that doesn't explain the decade long surge in scores, as educated Asians have been coming since 1965.

I do think blacks would score higher if they studied more.

[hellothere]

Neither the Chinese nor the Japanese were from the bottom of the barrel and therefore

Uh, yes they were. The genetic signature of Chinese Americans is more "Australoid" than even the furthest south of the South Chinese tested. Australoid blood = lower class in South Chinese society. The upper class of Guangdong (from where 80% of Chinese Americans originate from) are light-skinned migrants from North China.

If you removed the Southeast Asians from the pool the scores would soar beyond that of whites. If you factored in the fact that so many more whites are so daunted by the SATs that they don't even take them, the white scores would plummet further.

This is why the income/score data is better.. and even then, the Southeast Asians are included.

There is no way that Chinese/Japanese Americans are the best of the best. Rural children in Shanxi and Zhejiang (combined population: 80) clear 110 on raven's progressive matrices. And these aren't even the smartest provinces of China.

[hellothere]

My personal theory on why Asian scores keep rising is because the stupider ones keep marrying outside of their race.

That's part of the story of how the South Chinese became so intelligent.

[jj]

Uh, no they weren't.

The Southern Chinese completely dominate the Chinese economy today and have done really well overseas. The northerners are laggards and genetically have more in common with economically poor groups like the Kazakhs and Mongolians. In China, everybody knows southerners own northerners on the economic and educational fronts. Northern migrants in Guandong are mainly uneducated laborers.

The southerners never really married out. Southerners have been an in marrying group for centuries.

Those kids from Shanxi and Zhejiang scored at 105 on an IQ test that was normed on rural Chinese kids and therefore are smarter than other parts of China. Any direct comparison to Westerners is erroneous.

[hellothere]

Yes, they were. The variation in IQ is greatest in Hong Kong where traditionally Austric and North Chinese groups met up. The ones who went to America left to be laborers in America, and all but the least successful ones went back to Guangdong because they did not want to stay somewhere where they were fifth class citizens.

North Chinese are completely unrelated to Mongols who are only distantly related to Japanese/Koreans, etc. Despite Mongol and Tungus conquests, they didn't make a dent on North Chinese atDNA simply becacuse they forbade intermarriage with unrelated groups.

North Chinese are O3, Mongols/Manchus are hap C3. Far South Chinese are North Chinese paternally, and the mtDNA varies. People just South of the Yangtze have only a little Austronesian or Daic/Kradai blood.

The southerners never really married out. Southerners have been an in marrying group for centuries.

Genetic studies prove you dead wrong. Southerners variously intermarried with the small tribes out of Austronesian/Kradai/Austroasiatic groups in the south. Many of them did not.

Those kids from Shanxi and Zhejiang scored at 105 on an IQ test that was normed on rural Chinese kids

No. They scored 108 and 115 respectively- a new study puts Shanxi at 113. It wasn't normed on anything.

[hellothere]

And comparing "Asian" to "White" is erroneous.

"Asian and Pacific Islander" = "Caucafrican and Bushmen" in terms of genetic "relevance"

Caucasoid = East Asian

White = One subset of the major East Asian groups i.e South Chinese, North Chinese and Tibetans, and Mongols and Tungus.

The Japanese (excepting the Australoid Ainu) and Koreans are a mixture of the above.

East Asians have much, much higher IQs than Caucasoids. The North Chinese average IQ in the wealthy East Coast regularly clears 110. But in Sichuan, it's only around 105.

[hellothere]

As for "IQ test normed on rural Chinese kids", no, they were DONE on rural Chinese kids.

Rural Zhejiang boys score 115 on Raven's.

[jj]

I looked up this study that put Zhejiang at 115
All tests are normed on some sample. Please read more on IQ tests before you embarass yourself further.

I did some research on this 115 IQ for Zhejiang. It seems the study was done to assess the impact of fluoride on rural Chinese IQ and looked at different rural areas in China. The IQ test given was Raven's, but it was created for and normed on a rural Chinese population with the mean arbitrarily set to 100. Zhejiang's IQ is not 15 points above whites, it's just 15 points above the control rural Chinese sample. Zhejiange are smarter than other rural Chinese, but they're not 15 points smarter than whites. All the test shows is that this southern Chinese population is smarter than the typical group of Chinese kids. Assuming Zhejiangese are as smart as the southerners that immigrated to the U.S., that'd put the mean rural Chinese IQ (at 15 points below) at around an 85. I would assume nutrition might play a role in this.

Another IQ test given to Mexican kids in areas with different fluroide concentrations found IQs in the 95-105 range too. I suppose you want to me believe that Mexicans are as smart as Chinese and smarter than whites.

If you read Cavalli-Sforza's research on population genetics, you will see that Mongolians and North Chinese group together. As do southern Chinese, Vietnamese, Malays, Thais, and Filipinos. As I also pointed out, there's a 60% urban intermarriage rate between Han and Mongolians in China. If there were significant intellectual and economic differences, that wouldn't be happening.

A 110 IQ is fanciful, considering Asian-American kids don't even test outside the 98-106 range. 115 IQ is even more illusionary, as that would make Chinese much smarter than Jews. With that type of IQ, I'm surprised the Asians haven't taken over the world.

The 98.5 IQ is fair as it controls for environment and SES. Besides, as I pointed out, Thomas Sowell's research indicates that Japanese immigrants were pre-selected to make sure only men with money and work ethic were immigrating. The less capable were screened out. 98.5 is not an unfair IQ for them or for the Chinese. Other studies have the disadvantage of not controlling for environment and SES.

[hellothere]

I did some research on this 115 IQ for Zhejiang. It seems the study was done to assess the impact of fluoride on rural Chinese IQ and looked at different rural areas in China.

That one was the Shanxi one. The Zhejiang study is in Chinese, which I really doubt you can read.

Zhejiang's IQ is not 15 points above whites

Yes, it is. Not only 15 points, really, if you count the fact that many white groups score 92-97.

Another IQ test given to Mexican kids in areas with different fluroide concentrations found IQs in the 95-105 range too.

WHICH test? Both the Zhejiang and Shanxi study were Raven's Progressive Matrices that was altered to take into account that these children are semi-literate. Otherwise, the other 90% of the test was unchanged.

If you read Cavalli-Sforza's research on population genetics, you will see that Mongolians and North Chinese group together. As do southern Chinese, Vietnamese, Malays, Thais, and Filipinos. As I also pointed out, there's a 60% urban intermarriage rate between Han and Mongolians in China.

Cavalli-Sforza does not list the North Chinese. He lists the Tibetans, which are practically the same ethnic group, and they are significantly different from Norhteast Asians.

60% intermarriage between Mongols and Chinese? There are 750 million Northern Chinese and 5 million Mongols.

A 110 IQ is fanciful, considering Asian-American kids don't even test outside the 98-106 range. 115 IQ is even more illusionary, as that would make Chinese much smarter than Jews. With that type of IQ, I'm surprised the Asians haven't taken over the world.

Jews do not have 115 IQ and yes the Mongols did take over the world already. The problem is that natural resources are not as available in East Asia and East Asians have not cooperated well with each other. If the Chinese and Mongols were allies from the start, it'd be a different story.

The 98.5 IQ is fair as it controls for environment and SES

Old, old test with no relevance today. Back then the Irish were semi-retarded according to IQ tests. All modern tests of East Asian IQ put them at 106-115 with a standard deviation of 14-15+, depending on which test it is.

The fact that there are 0 whites alive with 200 IQ while there is one Korean speaks volumes.

(forgot to put name in)

[jj]

No, I can't read Chinese. I can use a translator on the text. According to the study, the specific Raven's Matrices IQ test used in Zhejiang was the same IQ test used in Shanxi. This test was originally given to a rural Chinese sample, with the mean score set to 100 IQ. Zhejiangese are therefore 15 points smarter than the the rural Chinese sample, but not they're not 15 points smarter than Westerners. The test administered on Zhejiangese would need to be administered in the U.S. and UK before we came to any conclusions about Zhejiangese v.s. Westerners.

There are Raven's Matrices IQ tests that have been administered on Westerners and then urban Chinese, but those tests haven't been administered on rural Chinese yet. The specific test given in Zhejiange and Shanxi was not a translation of a previous test, but a new test created for rural Chinese kids. No matter how well or how badly that sample did on the test, the mean was abritarily going to be put a 100 IQ, so comparisons could be made when the test was later given to high fluoride and low fluoride rural communities.

Then I suppose you think that the typical Chinese scores at the 90th percentile for whites. Which, I suppose, would mean that the typical Chinese-American might be at the 95-99th percentile.

Cavalli-Sfzora has a chart of 39 populations and shows the proximity grouping. The northern Chinese are grouped most closely to Bhutanese and Tibetans on the chart.

60% urban marriage rate between Mongols and Hans means that 60% of urban Mongols are marrying Han partners. Sounds reasonable when you consider that most sources claim that Han-Mongol marriage is pretty widespread.

A 115 IQ is so high that resources and lack of cooperation wouldn't stop Asians from taking over. Besides, Jewish people, with a population size of 12 million and a history of persecution, have had more of an impact on the present day world than 1.5+ billion north/East Asians.

Mongolia's economy is currently being deregulated and the literacy rate is pretty high. If you're right about high Mongol IQ, then I'd expect that there will be high growth in the coming years.

Project Talent and Coleman Report were conducted in the 1960s and compared middle-class AAs to whites.

The Irish you're referring to were an economically deprived population in the late 1800s when they were considered retarded. 1960s Asians tested by the government were middle-class. Besides, those same 1960s tests showed blacks at 15 points below whites and Hispanics at a little bit higher. Those gaps have endured until today, which indicates the validity of the test.

Even if we accept that Asians have higher IQs than whites, the PISA indicates East Asians outdo whites by 3-7.5 points. An AEI intellectual tested immigrant IQs and put Hispanics at 82, East Asians at 106, and South Asians (Indians) at 112. On IQ tests (environment not controlled for), even Rushton and Lynn put Asians at 3-5 points ahead of whites. 15-20 points is not indicated here.

How do we know that there are 0 whites with 200 IQ?

[rob]

Half Sigma,

Is "hellothere" Linda and whatever s/he commented as before that?

hellothere has a similar, poor reasoning style, but without the idiosyncratic spelling, I can't tell.

[HS: If "hellothere" and "Linda" have different IP addresses.]

[hellothere]

"This test was originally given to a rural Chinese sample, with the mean score set to 100 IQ."

Nope. They simply used worldwide standards to determine "100 IQ". The "original" test was "modified" but they do not state how it was modified until later in the study, where it says it was adjusted to take into account that the kids were semi-literate. Instruction on test components was more verbal. The Shanxi study with arsenic, fluoride effects on IQ said nothing about norming 100 IQ to rural Chinese kids. That's just a fantasy. Note how they compare the control, high-as and moderate-as groups to the "average" of all of China- which was also not normed on anything.

"Which, I suppose, would mean that the typical Chinese-American might be at the 95-99th percentile."

Like I said before, the Chinese Americans are the dregs of Guangdong, which was the dregs of China for over 1,000 years before Northerners migrated en masse and hybridized with the locals.

Look at this map here, of 650k SNPs plotted on E-W and N-S axes: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ro2ijOk8JWc/STq-lWLjfwI/AAAAAAAAAb0/wSNXMS5rG4o/s320/journal.pone.0003862.g001.jpg

CHA = Chinese American
CHB = Chinese in Beijing

Though the graph is small, you can see that the CHA are even more Australoid than the Taiwanese- which is by far the most "Southern" of provinces.

South Chinese society (I'd know because I was raised there) is stratified like many other mixed race societies- the relatively purer Northerners and the upper class hybrids make up the light-skinned ruling class. Those who are purely Australoid make up a perpetual underclass that lives in squalor.

"The northern Chinese are grouped most closely to Bhutanese and Tibetans on the chart."

Yes. They have a similar genetic and thus IQ profile- Tibetans in Amdo generally score around 105 despite their poor nutrition.

"Asians from taking over"

They already have (Mongol Empire), and Han China was much more powerful than Rome in many ways that can be measured.

"Mongolia's economy is currently being deregulated and the literacy rate is pretty high. If you're right about high Mongol IQ, then I'd expect that there will be high growth in the coming years."

They already have between 8-10% growth now. Bhutan recently became more capitalist and democratic, and they grew 22% in 2008, and Mongolia 9.9% (that's not a typo!). Keep in mind that both of these are landlocked nations with hardly any FDI. Bhutan also has a large Nepali underclass (predominantly illegals) that it is having trouble keeping at bay. Each of the Tigers, Japan and China also had a similar phase of wildly varying growth rates as their base "stabilized" before FDI and aid came in to make a big impact. I'm betting that Bhutan and Mongolia, and then North Korea when it liberalizes, will see economic growth like Japan, the Tigers, and China.

"middle-class AAs"

Middle-class AA can mean a mail-order bride or Southeast Asian prostitute. They have nothing to do with East Asians, generally. This would be like taking a pool of 50% whites and 50% Africans and then trying to find their IQ... total nonsense.

"the PISA indicates East Asians outdo whites by 3-7.5 points. An AEI intellectual tested immigrant IQs and put Hispanics at 82, East Asians at 106, and South Asians (Indians) at 112. On IQ tests "

Even then how does that fit in with your theory that "East Asian" Americans are more intelligent than East Asians in East Asia?

The thing is, while East Asians in America are the dregs of society and also mixed in with Southeast Asians, they score higher than Japanese and Taiwanese on TIMSS. This is because the schools are simply better, and East Asian schools have been slow to reform because they don't realize their high scores are due to higher IQ.

For example Japan spends 3.5% of GDP (approx $1000 per capita) on education vs. Scandinavian 7-9% (approx $4000 per capita).

Lastly, East Asians have a longer life cycle and thus testing an East Asian at age 12 is like testing a white 11 year old or black 10 year old. IQ tests done before maturity are thus biased against East Asians and in favor of blacks, while culturally there are slight biases against all non-whites. You can pore through the data yourself and track the average scores by age if you want, but East Asian scores do indeed increase as the subjects approach (a later) intellectual maturity.

"How do we know that there are 0 whites with 200 IQ?"

Because if there were we'd already hear you bragging about it.

[jj]

The test was developed in China. It wasn't developed in any Western country and it wasn't given in any Western country. Besides, does it make sense that the rural Chinese kids would score exactly 100.0 IQ for the sample? Or does it make sense that average for the sample was normed for 100.0, as it always is when an IQ test is given? 100.0 is too an exact number to be anything other than a normed value.

The dregs of Guangdong? First of all, almost all Chinese-Americans are from a select wave of immigrants that came after 1965. Second, Guangdong is one of China's wealthiest provinces and attracts lots of northern migrants. Third, the dregs wouldn't have the money to immigrate or buy merchant status or false identification. Besides, these dregs compare pretty well to the Japanese-American imigrants, who I assume you think are equally smart.

Okay, Chinese-Americans might be Australoid to some extent. It doesn't imply anything about IQ, as they come from one of the wealthiest and most advanced regions of China - coastal Guangdong. Really, if anything, you could argue CHAs come from a higher IQ region.

I haven't lived in southern China, but an area with so many of these dark-skinned inferior Australoids shouldn't be so wealthy. The wealth should be concentrated in the light-skinned, pure Mongoloid north.

Then are we assuming Tibetans are high IQ?

Let me quote something on Bhutan's economy:

"Bhutan's economy is based mainly on agriculture, and forestry which provide the main livelihood for 80% of the population and account for about 40% of GDP. Although the living condition of most of the people in Bhutan do not seem as dire as that of the poor peoples of other third world countries mainly owing to our small population, Bhutan is without doubt, one of the least developed countries in the world.

The Government of Bhutan gets most of its revenue from selling hydroelectric power to India. Chhukha Hydroelectric Power Corporation supplies elecricity to the northern states of India. Thus we get money from them. There are two more huge hydro-electric power projects, Tala and Kurichhu, under construction at this time. After their completion, it is hoped that our revenues will be further increased. Other sources of revenue include tourism and minerals like coal, gypsum, cement production and ferro-chemicals.

Agriculture consists largely of subsistence farming and animal husbandry. Rugged mountains dominate the terrain and make the building of roads and other infrastructure difficult and expensive. The economy is closely aligned with India's through strong trade and monetary links.
"

For Mongolia, mineral extraction accounts for 1/3 of the GDP. More like the Middle East than like Japan.

Imperial Rome has been described as the most advanced civilization of its time and far exceeded what was in Japan or Korea at the time. China has been advanced for thousands of years, but other regions like India or the Mid East have too.

Southeast Asian prostitutes? The middle-class Asian-Americans in the 1960s were overwhelmingly Japanese and Chinese, with a few Filipinos. Beyond that, Filipino-Americans and Vietnamese-Americans, despite being inferior as they are, are doing well in this country. Just check the stats if you want.

I brought up the PISA to indicate that Asians don't have a 15-20 point IQ advantage. I think I indicated that East Asians in the U.S. are probably as smart as those back home, but those back home are under much more academic pressure and are achieving much more. Even if we assume those back in Asia are smarter and that AAs are dregs, and that environment doesn't matter, Asians are most likely at 105 IQ.

"The thing is, while East Asians in America are the dregs of society and also mixed in with Southeast Asians, they score higher than Japanese and Taiwanese on TIMSS. This is because the schools are simply better, and East Asian schools have been slow to reform because they don't realize their high scores are due to higher IQ."

Asians are super smart, but they don't realize they have high IQs?

The Japanese government spends less on its pupils, but parents spend enormous sums on cram schools. Also, instruction time is significantly higher. As a previous study with black children in Harlem showed, keeping kids in school much longer per day can improve achievement a lot. By keeping black kids in Harlem in school for a longer day and adding more discipline, teachers brought their academic achievement to the level of whites. I'd bet that by keeping their kids studying harder, Asians are doing a lot better than they'd do if their kids goofed around like Americans do.

East Asian achivement rises with age most likely because as students get older, studying outside the classroom and taking advanced AP/honors classes matter more.

[hellothere]

No, I'm not Linda. In my opinion, South Asians are predominantly Australoid not Caucasoid. Genetic studies seem to confirm this.

poor reasoning style

Right, because fact is poor reasoning and your whining about how "Asians" study more than whites while whites are inherently "more intelligent" than blacks is not hypocritical at all.

East Asian IQ is 106-115 and rising. Learn to live with it.

"The test was developed in China."

No, Raven's Progressive Matrices as not developed in China.

" Besides, does it make sense that the rural Chinese kids would score exactly 100.0 IQ for the sample?"

Who said they did? To calculate scores they just time and tabulate correct answers and come up with a number.

"as they come from one of the wealthiest and most advanced regions of China"

Back then coastal Guangdong was not that wealthy.

"The wealth should be concentrated in the light-skinned, pure Mongoloid north."

It will be, eventually. For obvious reasons the coastal areas are wealthier now.

"For Mongolia, mineral extraction accounts for 1/3 of the GDP. More like the Middle East than like Japan."

Okay, I guess Japan had a really low IQ in 1950.

"Imperial Rome has been described as the most advanced civilization of its time and far exceeded what was in Japan or Korea at the time. China has been advanced for thousands of years, but other regions like India or the Mid East have too."

Yes? But China was more advanced than India, the Mid East or Rome/Greece. They had a larger economy, stronger army, survived longer, even though they had fewer natural resources and next to no slavery.

"but those back home are under much more academic pressure and are achieving much more"

They're not- East Asians in America do better on tests than East Asians in East Asia. Likewise, Europeans in America do better than Europeans in Europe. Same goes for Latin Americans and Africans.

"Asians are super smart, but they don't realize they have high IQs?"

Political correctness. It's a mental disease.

"but parents spend enormous sums on cram schools"

Then white and Jewish parents spend a lot of money cheating on the SAT (fake disabilities).

"Asians are doing a lot better than they'd do if their kids goofed around like Americans do."

You don't think Starcraft and WOW in Korea is goofing around?

[jj]

If you want to put East Asians ahead of whites and don't believe in environment, Lynn and Rushton are willing to put Asians at 103 IQ. I could accept that, but 3 points is a trivial difference. You can maintain your position, but 115 IQ is not accepted by any of the main researchers.

Being smart and being studious are not the same thing. Asians and Indians are superior to whites, and Jews, in the sense that they're taking better advantage of the educational and professional opportunities that society has to offer them.

I think I've been consistently saying that if black people studied harder, they could achieve more. If they studied harder, they could outdo whites in theory. I can think of a few examples of blacks outdoing whites when IQ is controlled for.

[jj]

Raven's Matrices have different versions. It's not one consistent test. If you research the study, you will find the sample was scored at 100.0 IQ. Either the Chinese scored at exactly 100.0 IQ or the test was normed to that number arbitarily so a comparison could be made.

The southeast has historically been very wealthy in comparison to the rest of the country and has a strong business and intellectual tradition. Guangdong was pretty poor in the past compared to today, but other places were worse.

Well, then I suppose Mongolia will surpass the southeast of China too. So will these north Asian Central Asian countries, like Kazakhstan.

"Okay, I guess Japan had a really low IQ in 1950."

Do you remember what happened prior to 1950???? Oh yeah, a little something called WWII. Also, a little something called Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's why it produced very little.

Prior to WWII, Japan was an industrial super power and was confident enough to take on America. It later regained its place as an industrial power after a period of rebuilding and recovery.

China has had more political unity and population than a lot of these places, but it also went to hell during the imperial declines. I suppose you wouldn't argue that Chinese IQs were lower when the empires were disunified and falling apart than when China was unified and booming. Achievement is a product of IQ, but political circumstances matter too. A unified China is much more formidable than a disunified, decaying China, even if the IQ isn't any different.

East Asians in America tend to come from college educated families. East Asians in Asia come from all sections of the society.

I thought Asians were poltically incorrect. That's why Japan, Korea, and Taiwan have no immigration and deport illegals a lot.

If whites and Jews are really so bad and low in IQ, I wonder why Asians (Koreans, Taiwanese, Chinese, HK) even want to come here. The barbarism of white and Jewish Americans/Australians/Canadians/British/French should dissuade the men of Asia from wanting to immigrate.

Starcraft and WOW is goofing around, but Korean kids are going to school for much of their day and cram school for much of their night. They also are going to school during the summer. If they do better than Americans, work ethic accounts for some of it.

By the way, when the ethnic Chinese were expelled from Vietnam in the 1970s, who took them in? The U.S., Canada, Australia, and UK. Who didn't take them in? Japan. Believe me, Asians hate each other more than whites ever could.

[hellothere]

"Lynn and Rushton are willing to put Asians at 103 IQ"

Lynn and Rushton put them at 106. Chris Brand puts them at 110.

"The southeast has historically been very wealthy in comparison to the rest of the country"

Since we've already established that you know absolutely nothing about China's geography or history lets not play this game. Guangdong was backwards for 3,000+ years in China's history. Guangxi and Guizhou have always been the poorest provinces in China.

"So will these north Asian Central Asian countries, like Kazakhstan."

Like I said three times, Kazakhs are half Caucasoid and have a parasitical, corrupt component impeding growth.

"Prior to WWII, Japan was an industrial super power and was confident enough to take on America. It later regained its place as an industrial power after a period of rebuilding and recovery."

And prior to being taking over by the Manchus, the Mongols created the greatest empire the world has ever seen. The Japanese outnumbered them by several million, even then. Yet Japan could not even win a war against Korea in the 1600s.

"East Asians in America tend to come from college educated families. East Asians in Asia come from all sections of the society."

No, they don't. Most the earliest Chinese are Cantonese that could not afford to go home, refugees from Southeast Asia. There are some college students from China (90,000) and the Taiwanese represent the middle class of Taiwan (500,000) but that's it. The rest are illegal laborers (and no, it does not cost very much to be stuffed into a shipping container), restaurant workers, etc. Yet, they still outperform other groups.

"If whites and Jews are really so bad and low in IQ, I wonder why Asians (Koreans, Taiwanese, Chinese, HK) even want to come here."

There are 3.5 million East Asians in Europe in 6.5 million in America. America, of course, is not your land.

There are 7-8 million Russians in Manchuria, 3.5 million Russians in Kazakhstan, 250,000 Russians in Yakutia, so on and so forth. There are far, far more Europeans in "Asia" than the other way around.

"but Korean kids are going to school for much of their day and cram school for much of their night."

It's still ineffective schooling. If they just relaxed a bit they would do much better.

"Believe me, Asians hate each other more than whites ever could."

No one is ever going to believe you. We all know that if whites had the chance, China today would look like America.

[jj]

Murray and Hernstein put Asians at 103 IQ in the Bell Curve, which Lynn and Rushton concurred with. Chris Brand?

By southeast, I'm referring to Fujian, Guandong, southern Jiangsu, and and Zhejiang. Those provinces have been very wealthy going back 500-1000 years and also were by far the strongest on the imperial exams. The northerners fared so badly on the exams that quotas were introduced to cut southern representation. Despite this, you continue to make claims about Australoid admixture making southeasterners inferior.

Kazakhs are originally from Mongolia and are racially and lingustically similar. In Mongolia, they are economically comparable to the Mongol population. I would expect them to be fairly representative of Mongolian abilities. Even if we assume that they're half Mongolian and half Turkic, they should still be putting together a pretty wealthy country if their Mongolian genes are really so high IQ.

Also, as I pointed out, the affluent parts of Kazakhstan are in the mostly Russian north. The Kazakh south is impoverished, just like much of Central Asia, despite being populated by North Asians, is impoverished.

Mongols created the greatest empire? Perhaps you may want to check that hyperbole. The Mongols established dominion over a large amount of territory, but how is that the same thing as Japan becoming an industial and technological superpower? It's warriors v.s. inventors here.

"No, they don't. Most the earliest Chinese are Cantonese that could not afford to go home, refugees from Southeast Asia. There are some college students from China (90,000) and the Taiwanese represent the middle class of Taiwan (500,000) but that's it. The rest are illegal laborers (and no, it does not cost very much to be stuffed into a shipping container), restaurant workers, etc. Yet, they still outperform other groups."

Statements like this exemplify your massive ignorance. According to the census, Asian-American immigrants are far more likely to have a college degree than any other ethnic group. About 47% of Chinese-American immigrants have a college degree, v.s. 6% of mainland Chinese. We draw overwhelmingly from China's most educated population segment.

Even the less educated Chinese immigrants come from middle-class families in highly affluent and mercantile coastal Guandong, Zhejiang, and coastal Fujian. The cost of immigrating to America is extremely high by Chinese standards and is affordable to only those of means, which filters out peasants and slum dwellers. Even illegal aliens must pay smugglers a large upfront fee, the Chinese equivalent of nearly $1 million according to one estimate, to get smuggled here. It costs a lot to get here, by Chinese standards, and anyone not middle class and urban is going to have difficulty getting out.

You can bet there would be hundreds of millions of Asian peasants here if we opened the doors fully. Unfortunately, there's a large ocean to cross and that's affordable to only people of means. Even then, lots of Asians are queing to immigrate to the West.

One wonders why 90,000 Chinese college students would come here if China is such a great place, by the way. I also wonder how many Chinese settle each year in Japan and Korea.

Tibet and Uighurstan are not your land, by the way, and they want out.

The Japanese are more relaxed than the Koreans in their education approach and they're doing worse. The Japanese are actually doing worse than the Finns and Canadians on the PISA. Which supports my theory that studying boosts test
scores and that, when controlled for SES and studying habits, Asians aren't going to do better or worse than whites. You should read about how some Japanese kids are now going to Indian-run educational institutes to try and regain their academic edge.

[dada]

The paucity of knowledge related on the mechanism and physiological basis of intelligence forces us to rely on “broad” measures such as brain size known to be correlated with intelligence—which suggests that they do not necessarily imply a direct causal relationship. But given that the notion of genius transcends racial boundaries, that is, is not a race-exclusive characteristic, it is very likely that East Asians are generally more capable than White—speculative supposition. Human evolution likely involved the environmental pressure to adapt. This pressure urged the synergistic use of cognitive abilities as well as athletic abilities among early humans—speculation. This explains our current brain physiology—speculation. Because the same sets of cognitive abilities were promoted for all ethnic groups, it is unlikely that larger brain sizes do not generally result in similar cognitive advantages across those groups—speculative supposition. Currently, IQ is the foremost used cognitive abilities indicator, correlation has shown that IQ is a good predictor of scholastic achievement. East Asians have higher gF than gC; in contrast, Ashkenazi Jews have higher gC than gF, which suggest that Ashkenazi Jews IQ advantage is mainly due to environmental factors—difference between gC and gF is mainly a function of differences in cultural opportunity and personal interest. IQ statistics on Ashkenazi Jews must be assessed carefully because of methodological issues and sample sizes. Perhaps the most reliable research on Ashkenazi intelligence was conducted by Backman in 1972. According to it, American Jews have a verbal IQ of 107.8., this does not include performance IQ; therefore, the general IQ falls below that. Elements of the literature suggest several interesting facts on East Asians. Those related to neoteny can be summarized by Ashley Montagu's quote: "Larger brain, larger braincase, broader skull, broader face, flat roof of the nose, inner eye fold, more protuberant eyes, lack of brow ridges, greater delicacy of bones, shallow mandibular fossa, small mastoid processes, stocky build, persistence of thymus gland into adult life, persistence of juvenile form of zygomatic muscle, persistence of juvenile form of superior lip muscle, later eruption of full dentition (except second and third molars), less hairy, fewer sweat glands, fewer hairs per square centimeter [and] long torso" East Asians are reportedly said to have the lowest crime rates among all ethnic groups. Certain studies have reported smaller sexual organs, lower egg-twinning rates and lower level of testosterone among people of East Asian heritage—perhaps future studies will give us more insight on related questions. A longitudinal transracial adoption study suggest that parental fostering has no effect on IQ among Black, White and Asian children. Another research concludes that values that lead to higher academic grades are actually found more often in White homes. According to triadic patent statistics, Japan leads the world in technology being the leader in all technological fields. However, this is not the case in science. The gap between Japan's science and technological output can be explained by investment distribution. Another interesting fact is that in 2001 around 57 percent of all S&E postdoctoral positions at U.S. universities were held by foreign born scholars—this excludes second, third generation immigrants and so on. This is in sharp contract with Japan, which is an insular and closed society. Truth judgments on information of historical nature must imply a level on uncertainty; therefore, they can't be used as a proof for anything except a circular claim. The context dependency of historical information undermine any argument based on such knowledge.

[doramander]

The average scores of the top 10 percentile in Japan(667) and South Korea(650) are the highest in the world before those of U.S.(600) and Germany(627) in problem-solving according to the latest PISA research.

[consumerpr0n]

Individuals differ in intelligence due to
differences in both their environments and
genetic heritage. Heritability estimates range
from 0.4 to 0.8 (on a scale from 0 to l), most
thereby indicating that genetics plays a bigger
role than does environment in creating
IQ differences among individuals. (Heritability
is the squared correlation of phenotype
with genotype.) If all environments were to
MAINSTREAM SCIENCE ON INTELLIGENCE 15
become equal for everyone, heritability would
rise to 100% because all remaining differences
in IQ would necessarily be genetic in origin.

That IQ may be highly heritable does
not mean that it is not affected by the environment.
Individuals are not born with fixed,
unchangeable levels of intelligence (no one
claims they are). IQs do gradually stabilize
during childhood, however, and generally
change little thereafter.

[hellothere]

"and also were by far the strongest on the imperial exams"

That's odd, because apparently most of the famous court bureaucrats were from Henan or Shandong as well as Zhejiang. Zhejiang and Shandong are probably the most intelligent provinces.

"Kazakhs are originally from Mongolia and are racially and lingustically similar"

I guess African Americans and Hispanics are racially similar to whites because they speak English sometimes? No, Kazakhs are 40-50% Indo-European... just more so on the maternal side. Likewise, there are a ton of Russians in Kazakhstan.

"half Turkic, they should still be putting together a pretty wealthy country if their Mongolian genes are really so high IQ."

I guess North Koreans are retarded while the South Koreans are genetically more intelligent according to your deduction.

"About 47% of Chinese-American immigrants have a college degree, v.s. 6% of mainland Chinese. We draw overwhelmingly from China's most educated population segment."

Chinese American *immigrants*. That's not counting the already present Chinese Americans, nor the Chinese illegals. Immigrants from Mainland China *proper* constitute less than 100,000 people. There are 6.5 million Chinese Americans; 500,000 are Taiwanese.

"Even the less educated Chinese immigrants come from middle-class families in highly affluent and mercantile coastal Guandong, Zhejiang, and coastal Fujian."

No they're not. For every wealthy Fujianese there are probably four illiterate restaurant workers. And most of the wealthiest go back- they see more opportunity in booming China than collapsing America.

"One wonders why 90,000 Chinese college students would come here if China is such a great place, by the way."

China has too few universities.

"Tibet and Uighurstan are not your land, by the way, and they want out."

Uighurstan? The Uighur didn't even exist until 300-500 years after the Han Chinese settled in Eastern Xinjiang. Before the, the Qiang (an ethnic group you have probably never heard of) roamed all around the Southern edge of Xinjiang from 6,000 BC onwards. Soon after, Mongols took the North. Then came the Tocharians around 2,000 BC. Then came the Chinese in 60 BC, returning to their waypoint towards the West, from the East. After that, the Uighur (originally pure NE Asians from Lake Baikal) split off from the Goache and kicked the Tocharians out.

Like I said, it has been established that you know nothing about Chinese history.

"The Japanese are actually doing worse than the Finns and Canadians on the PISA."

The top 5% of Japanese scores over 100 points higher than the top 5% of Finns.

"when controlled for SES and studying habits, Asians aren't going to do better or worse than whites."

When controlled for SES and studying habits, whites aren't going to do any better or worse than blacks.

Oh oops, never mind, when you adjust for SES "Asian" kids score higher than whites. And that includes Southeast Asians, and the fact that the Chinese Americans taking the SAT are the dregs of Guangdong.

[jj]

I don't what it takes to become a court bueracrat, but if you do some reading you will find that the coastal southeasterners were dominating the imperial exams to the point were a quota was imposed on them.

Hispanics and blacks are not from Europe, while Kazakhs are from Mongolia. Even if we take your assumption that Kazakhs are half Mongol, they should still be doing pretty well if Mongol IQ = 115 and Indo-European IQ = 85-100.

North Korea didn't dump Communism 20 years ago like Mongolia. If it did, you might have a point.

100,000 Chinese-American immigrants? You need to seriously get some facts on your side. The majority of the 4.5 million + Chinese-American community is foreign born.

The New York Times says that Fujianese illegals come from already affluent backgrounds in Fujian and come here in pursuit of more wealth. They profiled a few Fujianese illegals and one of them was even in a heart surgeon. That they can come here, despite the high cost, is a product of their high economic status in China.

High-IQ Chinese should have no problem setting up universities. That they're coming here, and we're not going there, shows you that we have higher IQs than them.

The present day Chinese Communist government has no claim over territory of ancient empires. What's relevant is that in this day in age, an imperialist Communist government is dominating and oppressing an ethnic group that wants nothing to do with them.

The mean Japanese score is lower than Finns or Canadians.

When controlled for SES and studying habits, whites actually do exceed blacks substanially. Not true for Asians. As we established, our Asians are the higher classes of Asia and are if anything more elite.

[ignoranttrollsareignorant]

The Asian countries/regions of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore far outscored their Western counterparts in mathematics and science, for both grade levels (see SOUTH KOREA: Seoul makes priority of education reform - March 26, 2008). Not only did they do better on average, but also the percentage of students reaching TIMSS 'advanced' benchmark was considerably higher for such countries. For example, 41% of fourth grade students reached the 'mathematics advanced' benchmark in Singapore, while 16% of UK students, 10% of US students, and 7% of Dutch students did.

[fakelomez]

A quick word on the "New SAT":

In 2004 the College Board introduced a new 3rd section to the SAT, consisting of a 25-minute essay, and 2 multiple-choice sections that (ostensibly) test students' understanding of basic grammar rules.

Because of this additional 800 point Writing section, I have to reluctantly concede that one's score on the New SAT -- just as the folks at Harvard would want you to believe -- is now marginally, if at all, a reliable proxy for IQ (or g, or whatever you feel most comfortable calling it).

I am owner and head-instructor for an SAT company in a major metropolitan area, and I see this unsettling reality play-out on a weekly basis. Specifically, my Chinese, Korean, and Japanese students -- largely the sons and daughters of first generation immigrants (I am in a city, not a suburb) -- with otherwise relatively high IQ's, lack the intuitive understanding of Standard English that other students with less high IQ's possess. Even when their vocabularies are commensurate with their relative IQ, these immigrant/ESL students have trouble grasping certain concepts particular to English's quirky -- and often arbitrary, bizarre, and counterintuitive -- constructions.

Two examples of grammar rules that confuse the hell out of these kids:

1) Prepositional idioms. For instance, that one speaks "to" another, rather than speaks "with" another,
2) Either/or sentences, in that the verb pursuant to the main clause only pertains to the last in the list of antecedent subjects.

Kids who grew-up in Standard English speaking households, know this stuff without knowing it -- even the dumb ones. The much brighter, more college ready, more sophisticated thinking immigrant students, simply don't (at least, not until they take my class :).

The essay is no better. Though we can all agree that the ability to articulate a meaningful and cohesive argument is essential to college success (and correlative to IQ), the essay on the SAT is graded according to a vague, and therefore useless, rubric that boils down to, "does this *sound* good." There is no credence given to the complexity of one's argument, nor to its depth of subject-matter (an essay about the Visigoths is no more score-worthy than one about American Idol contestants). Again, the people who suffer from the essay are high IQ students who happened not to be rhetorically gifted, either because English is foreign to them, or because they haven't been schooled in the art of bullshit.

The upshot of all of this is that the College Board, in conjunction with ETS (though the exact relationship is unclear), has effectively, with this new 800 point section, eliminated the 1 to 1 correlation between SAT scores and IQ -- if you believed that there ever was such a correlation.

The interesting question is, why did the Powers That Be deem it necessary to distort the meaning of the SAT? And why, in all the ways they could've distorted it, did they choose this way in particular?

[half-baked theory] I can only guess that this new section of the SAT was a direct assault against the influx of east Asian (and possibly Indian) students at the country's most selective universities. It is no secret that Asian students are extraordinarily high academic achievers. And because of their huge numbers -- ever increasing due to China's booming (or once booming) economy -- the amount of qualified east Asian students for the limited number of Ivy League spots, must have been reaching a point of critical mass.

How do you stem that tide? What we also know about these high-achieving east Asian students is that their English skills are less than substantial. These English skills, rather fortuitously for the P.T.B., are hard to "learn," regardless of IQ and especially for east Asians, because of the profound differences between English and their L1 tongue. Therefore, a 3rd section of the SAT that tests exclusively for those skills, will surely mitigate whatever advantage those students had on the original 2-part test.

And so it shall be. [/half-baked theory]

[trollinistrollin]

IQ of Asian Americans is the same as the IQ of Asians in Asia, except for Chinese and perhaps Vietnamese and other SEA.

[hellothere]

find that the coastal southeasterners were dominating the imperial exams to the point were a quota was imposed on them.

Shangdong is not the coastal Southeast.

"Even if we take your assumption that Kazakhs are half Mongol, they should still be doing pretty well if Mongol IQ = 115 and Indo-European IQ = 85-100."

I didn't say Mongol IQ was 115. When tested, it was 105-107 but they had a huge advantage in VS. If you give 92 for Iran's IQ you're left with 98.5, which isn't bad.

"North Korea didn't dump Communism 20 years ago like Mongolia. If it did, you might have a point."

India dumped socialism in the 80s, yet they are still poorer than Mongolia. India's average IQ is probably 90-92 with adequate nutrition.

"100,000 Chinese-American immigrants? You need to seriously get some facts on your side. The majority of the 4.5 million + Chinese-American community is foreign born."

I said under 100,000 from outside the Mainland. There are about 500,000 Taiwanese Americans, 90,000 Mainlanders (non-HK). The rest are the dregs of Guangdong, Chinese Vietnamese boat people and other Southeast Asian immigrants, or illegals.

"The New York Times says that Fujianese illegals come from already affluent backgrounds in Fujian and come here in pursuit of more wealth."

Wrong.

"High-IQ Chinese should have no problem setting up universities. That they're coming here, and we're not going there, shows you that we have higher IQs than them."

I guess Americans have the highest IQ in the world! After you have to pay Obama's debts, you're going to have the lowest.

Wait, but so many American execs and venture capitalists like Jim Rogers are going to East Asia. That proves that East Asia has the highest IQ!

The fact that you're unable to accept the test results at face value and have to selectively ignore data just shows how flimsy your arguments are.

Hate to break it to you, but all recent psychometrics research puts East Asians at 106+. Brand, Gottfredson, Lynn, Vanhanen, etc all agree.

"What's relevant is that in this day in age, an imperialist Communist government is dominating and oppressing an ethnic group that wants nothing to do with them."

More like an imperialistic ethnic group is invading territory that doesn't belong to them, and the communists are coddling them.

"The mean Japanese score is lower than Finns or Canadians."

Doesn't matter. Finns and Canadians dump huge amounts of money to bring up the tail end. The Japanese, on the other hand, have a shoddy and underfunded educational system but their top 5% still outscores Northern Europeans (who spend, on average, 7% of their GDPs on education) by over 100 points.

"When controlled for SES and studying habits, whites actually do exceed blacks substanially. Not true for Asians. As we established, our Asians are the higher classes of Asia and are if anything more elite."

As we established, the Chinese Americans are the dregs of Guangdong. The Japanese Americans are farm laborers. The Korean Americans are war brides, orphans and those around American troops- generally the more Southeast Asian underclass of Korea. All of the best East Asians are creating 4-10% growth in East Asia and accumulating high net worth.

Rather, it is apparently the Jews in America that are en elite- the Ashkenazim in Israel have an IQ of 102, not 115.

Some graphs for you.

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm#APPENDIX%20B

This shows that when controlled for SES, "Asians" outscore whites even though there are many Southeast Asians, recent immigrants who can't speak English, and the fact that East Asian Americans are the dregs of East Asia.

However, the Indians and Southeast Asians are the best of India and Southeast Asia so it almost balances out.

[hellothere]

find that the coastal southeasterners were dominating the imperial exams to the point were a quota was imposed on them.

Shangdong is not the coastal Southeast.

"Even if we take your assumption that Kazakhs are half Mongol, they should still be doing pretty well if Mongol IQ = 115 and Indo-European IQ = 85-100."

I didn't say Mongol IQ was 115. When tested, it was 105-107 but they had a huge advantage in VS. If you give 92 for Iran's IQ you're left with 98.5, which isn't bad.

"North Korea didn't dump Communism 20 years ago like Mongolia. If it did, you might have a point."

India dumped socialism in the 80s, yet they are still poorer than Mongolia. India's average IQ is probably 90-92 with adequate nutrition.

"100,000 Chinese-American immigrants? You need to seriously get some facts on your side. The majority of the 4.5 million + Chinese-American community is foreign born."

I said under 100,000 from outside the Mainland. There are about 500,000 Taiwanese Americans, 90,000 Mainlanders (non-HK). The rest are the dregs of Guangdong, Chinese Vietnamese boat people and other Southeast Asian immigrants, or illegals.

"The New York Times says that Fujianese illegals come from already affluent backgrounds in Fujian and come here in pursuit of more wealth."

Wrong.

"High-IQ Chinese should have no problem setting up universities. That they're coming here, and we're not going there, shows you that we have higher IQs than them."

I guess Americans have the highest IQ in the world! After you have to pay Obama's debts, you're going to have the lowest.

Wait, but so many American execs and venture capitalists like Jim Rogers are going to East Asia. That proves that East Asia has the highest IQ!

The fact that you're unable to accept the test results at face value and have to selectively ignore data just shows how flimsy your arguments are.

Hate to break it to you, but all recent psychometrics research puts East Asians at 106+. Brand, Gottfredson, Lynn, Vanhanen, etc all agree.

"What's relevant is that in this day in age, an imperialist Communist government is dominating and oppressing an ethnic group that wants nothing to do with them."

More like an imperialistic ethnic group is invading territory that doesn't belong to them, and the communists are coddling them.

"The mean Japanese score is lower than Finns or Canadians."

Doesn't matter. Finns and Canadians dump huge amounts of money to bring up the tail end. The Japanese, on the other hand, have a shoddy and underfunded educational system but their top 5% still outscores Northern Europeans (who spend, on average, 7% of their GDPs on education) by over 100 points.

"When controlled for SES and studying habits, whites actually do exceed blacks substanially. Not true for Asians. As we established, our Asians are the higher classes of Asia and are if anything more elite."

As we established, the Chinese Americans are the dregs of Guangdong. The Japanese Americans are farm laborers. The Korean Americans are war brides, orphans and those around American troops- generally the more Southeast Asian underclass of Korea. All of the best East Asians are creating 4-10% growth in East Asia and accumulating high net worth.

Rather, it is apparently the Jews in America that are en elite- the Ashkenazim in Israel have an IQ of 102, not 115.

Some graphs for you.

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm#APPENDIX%20B

This shows that when controlled for SES, "Asians" outscore whites even though there are many Southeast Asians, recent immigrants who can't speak English, and the fact that East Asian Americans are the dregs of East Asia.

However, the Indians and Southeast Asians are the best of India and Southeast Asia so it almost balances out.

[hellothere]

"I can only guess that this new section of the SAT was a direct assault against the influx of east Asian (and possibly Indian) students at the country's most selective universities. It is no secret that Asian students are extraordinarily high academic achievers. And because of their huge numbers -- ever increasing due to China's booming (or once booming) economy -- the amount of qualified east Asian students for the limited number of Ivy League spots, must have been reaching a point of critical mass."

That is exactly why they did it. The funny thing is that it backfired and just gives "Asian" kids even more of an advantage on the SAT.

Looks like the white and Jewish elites really believed their own nonsense about Asians being one race and also verbally challenged.

[hellothere]

JJ, in case you are interested here is a chart ranking the average gaokao (Chinese SATs on steroids) scores by province.

The rankings are as follows:

1. Shandong (Northern, Confucius' birthplace)
2. Henan (Northern, "Cradle of Chinese Civilization")
3. Jiangsu (Central-Southern, Wu Speakers)
4. Shanxi (Northern, Neolithic Chinese)
5. Yunnan (Predominantly pure Sino-Tibetans)
6. Guangxi (Southern)
7. Jiangxi (Southern)
8. Heilongjiang (Northeast)
9. Jilin (Northeast)
10. Guizhou (Southern)

I always thought Zhejiang was way up there, but I was right in guessing that Shangdong was the smartest province (for now).

[hellothere]

http://learning.sohu.com/s2007/2007gkcx/

There's the source.. forgot to include it.

(please combine my post if you can, mods)

[Aerain]

Typical White supremacists uses fallacies in their rhetorical strategies to assert White supremacy, the most common are:
1)denying that East Asians have higher IQ than White
2)denying that East Asians have bigger brains than White
3)asserting that East Asians have lower verbal IQ than White
4)asserting that East Asians have lower standard deviation than White
5)asserting that East Asians are less creative than White
6)pointing to historical achievements of Western European
7)singling out East Asians as exceptions to whom the same principles don't apply

If the person with whom you are debating meet any of the above criteria, dismiss him as a pathetic troll.

[jj]

Was a quota put on Shandong?

98.5 IQ is pretty high for Mongolia. About as high any of the Western countries and more than match for Russia.

India doesn't have Mongolia's level of per capita resources, but it does have a large technology industry. Mongolia is an Asian Botwsana/Saudi Arabia. Good economic model, but not at all like Japan's or Korea's.

"Hate to break it to you, but all recent psychometrics research puts East Asians at 106+. Brand, Gottfredson, Lynn, Vanhanen, etc all agree."

At least we're down from 115-120 IQ to 106. At that point, the Jews are higher than you guys. 102 IQ isn't realistic for Jewish-Americans, but it may be true for Jewish Israelis.

"The Japanese, on the other hand, have a shoddy and underfunded educational system "

Oh really? I thought you super high IQ Asians did everything better than those ignorant white buffoons you can't seem to beat.

The Japanese top few percent benefit from immense cram schooling, which Western kids do not. If Finns went to cram school, they'd do better than they already do.

Furthermore, the Japanese do a have a sophisicated education system that fully educates everybody. They don't spend a lot on fancy frills like Westerners do, but Japanese kids schools a lot more than Western kids.

"More like an imperialistic ethnic group is invading territory that doesn't belong to them,"

As oppposed to flooding Han into Tibet and Uighurstan to overrun the territories and bring them into a corrupt and murderous Communist dominion.

"Wait, but so many American execs and venture capitalists like Jim Rogers are going to East Asia. That proves that East Asia has the highest IQ!"

The technology jobs are generally being outsourced to India, not East Asia. The top VCs are also hiring Indian technology workers on H-1B visas. If you look at the top VCs in America, the largest minority group are Indians.

Gao Kao is not a uniform national test. Each province gives its own Gao Kao and is given a quota in the universities. 670 in Shandong does not mean the same thing as 670 in Hubei.

East Asian Americans are the best of Asia. The Japanese were pre-selected by their government for adequate traits. The pre-1965 Chinese needed merchant status or expensive fake documentation. Post-1965 Asian immigrants are much more likely to have a college degree, even with the very low percentage of Asian natives that had a college degree, and with the Chinese they're drawn from the most affluent provinces and cities. The Koreans tend to be professionally oriented or entrpranuers, not laborers or war brides. Even the Vietnamese boat people were originally entrapranuers from Guandong that settled in SE Asia. No dregs here. The only dregs are the Hmong, who do terribly.

[MidnightSun]

Some people will never admit the bitter truth that East Asians are more intelligent than White or Ashkenazi Jews in general, and have more geniuses in relative and absolute terms than any of these two. Although they bend down to every so-called truth coming from White supremacists' mouths, and swallow.

[111gunz]

Crystallized intelligence (gc) refers to that aspect of cognition in which initial intelligent judgments have become crystallized as habits. Fluid intelligence (gf) is in several ways more fundamental and shows in tests requiring responses to entirely new situations. Before biological maturity individual differences between gf and gc will be mainly a function of differences in cultural opportunity and interest. Among adults, however these discrepancies will also reflect differences in age because the gap between gc and gf will tend to increase with experience which raises gc (whereas it has been shown that with increase in age some decay of gf occurs).

[hellothere]

"98.5 IQ is pretty high for Mongolia. About as high any of the Western countries and more than match for Russia."

Mongols in China tested at 105. Lynn puts Mongols at 101. Data is limited and their nutrition is poor; unlike other economies the Mongols have yet to receive a flood of FDI like America, Europe (Marshall Plan), Japan, India, etc.

"At least we're down from 115-120 IQ to 106."

Pay attention. I said 110-115. Your memory is failing you. And I said 106+, not 106. I don't agree with the 106 personally, but that's what Lynn believes.

"Oh really? I thought you super high IQ Asians did everything better than those ignorant white buffoons you can't seem to beat."

Japan and Hong Kong have already beaten you in net worth. The higher GDP of America and various areas in North Europe is due to a bloated financial sector bubble, and those incomes will steadily come down.

"The Japanese top few percent benefit from immense cram schooling"

Cram schooling is worthless and actually harms you more than anything else. East Asian "Americans", who are the dregs of East Asia and don't study much at all, outscore East Asians in East Asia.

"As oppposed to flooding Han into Tibet and Uighurstan to overrun the territories and bring them into a corrupt and murderous Communist dominion."

China's government kills fewer people than the American government does in Iraq. The Uighur are not native to Xinjiang. Those are the facts. If you don't know anything about East Asian history that's fine, but don't pretend you do.

"The technology jobs are generally being outsourced to India, not East Asia. The top VCs are also hiring Indian technology workers on H-1B visas. If you look at the top VCs in America, the largest minority group are Indians."

Because the high caste Indians place their loyalty with their region or state before their country. The best Chinese stay in China (or the government forces them to stay)

"East Asian Americans are the best of Asia. The Japanese were pre-selected by their government for adequate traits."

Nope. They're the dregs, deal with it. Even genetic studies show they are more related to Australoids.

Guess what? Those first few immigrants that were not the dregs- they left. All of the wealthiest initial Chinese men from Guangdong packed their bags and went home to Qing China when they made enough money. Only those who were too poor to leave stayed. Korean immigrants now are not too common compared to the abundant war brides (nearly 20% of the Korean female population) and laborers.

And you can expect all of the best college graduates to go back once your slave colony implodes from all the debt it owes.

[hellothere]

To clarify your laughable point about how Japanese farm laborers were the "best" of Japan-

Only a few hundred or up to a thousand Japanese -men- and men only were selected for good traits. Since then and up until Japanese immigration was restricted, the Japanese did not put much control on emigrants.

Thus, wives of the initial wave came and then many of them return home. Most did not plan to stay in the United States (like the Cantonese); all of the best and most successful went home for obvious reasons.

As for the Chinese, there are four groups. Mainland Chinese (100,000 legal residents, rest illegal or adoptees), Taiwanese (500,000), Southeast Asians (boat people and other) and Hong Kongers.

The first wave of Cantonese came to labor on railroads, back when Qing China had the highest GDP and wealth in the world and when America was just expanding. Those who earned a good living went back to China and brought their earnings with them. Those who stayed wished they could go home.

The Taiwanese Americans are about average. The upper class of Taiwan remains in Taiwan, and the best of the Taiwanese Americans go back to Taiwan.

Those from Hong Kong are generally laborers or restaurant workers. All of the best Hong Kongers are in Mainland China doing business or in Hong Kong.

Those from Southeast Asia are just refugees. Overall Chinese Americans are what I'd call "upper lower class".

As for the Koreans, nearly 20-25% of Korean women are old war brides. The first few Koreans, like the other East Asians, were laborers. During the period Korea was rapidly developing, the Koreans heading to the United States were generally upper lower class laborers who could not compete in the Korean school system. They leave to be dry cleaners, convenience store owners, etc and tended to live in crappy neighborhoods of LA.

A quote: "As many as one in four Korean immigrants in the United States can trace their immigration to the wife of a serviceman."

The high religiosity of Asian Americans is also hints at their lower average IQ.